President Clinton’s defenders insist that they abhor Clinton’s
“reprehensible” conduct but just don’t think it rises to the level of
impeachable offenses. When you cut through all the legalese of their
ivory tower enablers, their bottom-line position is that only conduct
that is “subversive of constitutional government” is impeachable.

When pressed to clarify, Clintonoids always hold up President Nixon’s
conduct as the paradigm of impeachability. Specifically, they cite
Nixon’s attempted use of federal agencies, such as the FBI, CIA and
Secret Service, to violate the civil rights of citizens through wiretaps
and other improper investigations. They don’t dare to disclose that of
the 15 specific allegations of impeachable conduct contained in the
three articles against Nixon, just a few of them would qualify as
“subversive of constitutional government,” as they define it. For
purposes of this piece, though, let’s disregard this cover-up and focus
instead on what Clintonoids concede is impeachable.

What Clintonoids find so intolerable about selective misconduct by
Nixon is that he used the immense powers of his office (by using
executive agencies under his authority) to violate the rights of
citizens. Isn’t the gravamen of this charge that Nixon was trying to
violate citizens’ rights? What difference does it make which
instrumentalities he used to achieve his nefarious purposes?

If indeed this is what so incenses the Clintonoids about Nixon then
shouldn’t they be outraged at the pattern of similar conduct engaged in
by governor and President Clinton? Clinton has a long history of
extramarital relationships and has maintained a taxpayer sponsored
bimbo-eruption team to handle the resulting problems. When accused of
such conduct he has always denied it and then used the powers of his
state or federal office to terrorize and destroy the reputations of his
female partners.

Clinton denied the relationship with Gennifer Flowers and viciously
accused her of fabricating the affair for her material benefit. He later
admitted the relationship under oath in the Jones case without ever
retracting his defamatory statements about Flowers. He also vehemently
denied his extended affair with Dolly Kyle Browning and allegedly
threatened to destroy her if she went public with it. Browning says that
it is more than a coincidence that virtually all of Clinton’s ex-bimbos
report that his goons have used the same vocabulary of threats against
them: “we will destroy you.”

Kathleen Willey testified that she was threatened and that her cat
was killed. Two former beauty queens involved with Clinton feared for
their safety.

Clinton die-hard loyalist Sidney Blumenthal testified to the grand
jury that Clinton denied sex of any kind with Lewinsky and said that she
had been stalking him. So before Clinton had been caught red-handed with
the semen-stained dress, he misled his staff into testifying that
Lewinsky made up the whole story and was threatening him. These
allegations have not been overlooked by the House managers. In their
brief filed with the Senate on Monday they allege that Clinton
orchestrated a campaign to discredit Lewinsky. If you’ll recall this is
the one factual allegation that inflamed Lindsey Graham and put him over
the “impeachability” threshold during the Judiciary Committee hearings.

We also must not forget that the White House has allegedly hired
private investigators, presumably with public funds, to dig up dirt on
Clinton’s accusers and enemies. There is no conceivably legitimate
purpose for the White House ever to engage private investigators to
investigate the lives of U.S. citizens.

Considering this remarkable consistency of behavior by President
Clinton, is it unreasonable to suspect that Larry Flynt, known
friend of Clinton defender, James Carville, is working in concert with
White House surrogates to destroy the reputations of the very people who
are sitting as Clinton’s accusers and jurors? Or is it more reasonable
to react like Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg, who, implying Flynt is
an independent agent, said, “Flynt’s mission is against hypocrisy and
that’s a pretty good mission.” Sure, senator.

Even if no information has surfaced tying Clinton directly to the use
of government agencies under his control to terrorize citizens, a
plethora of evidence exists that he has used other means involving the
full power and influence of his office to do so. I’m sure we’ll never
begin to know the half of it.

You can be sure that Lindsey Graham and the other House managers, if
given the chance by the Senate, will attempt to develop this troublesome
pattern of power abuse. If Democratic senators genuinely view the
impeachment power as a means to check abuses of presidential power
against private citizens, then they should be chomping at the bit to
bring Bill Clinton to justice. Only with the cooperation of at least 12
of them can we end Clinton’s “politics of personal destruction.” But
don’t hold your breath. In the final analysis it is not subversion of
government they truly abhor, but Republican government.

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.